Mariusz wrote:Perhaps what differentiate us is that I take these so-called "objects" as pedagogical tools only, expedient meaning but not as the definitive.

As I said, you are not understanding my point, and imputing things on to me that I have never stated.

The Consequentialists (Prasangikas) are not imputing anything You presented something of Candrakirti that suggested for me: first: the objects are perceived in the ultimate, second: all the "relative" is totally faulty. So can you please write what is you understanding of what you presented?

Excuse me, here was your presentation, not mine:But false perception is mthong brdzun, so what Candrakirti is clearly saying is that false/faulty/incorrect perception is relative, or totally obscuring, truth. The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth.

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:I'll ask the "leading question" then...if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct perception?

Or, in other words, is "perception" always incorrect?

Thank you very much conebeckham. You have exactly the same objections to Namdrol:

First:if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct.

look there's this whole debate that has been going on forever about whether Buddhas perceive the relative or only the ultimate. Since there is no consensus, I guess we'll just have to wait until we're Buddhas to find out. The Buddha, as he is portrayed in most of the extant texts, would undoubtably consider such speculation completely pointless anyway. What is important is how we perceive what, and why.

Thoroughly tame your own mind.This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25

gad rgyangs wrote:look there's this whole debate that has been going on forever about whether Buddhas perceive the relative or only the ultimate. Since there is no consensus, I guess we'll just have to wait until we're Buddhas to find out. The Buddha, as he is portrayed in most of the extant texts, would undoubtably consider such speculation completely pointless anyway. What is important is how we perceive what, and why.

No, you are in error. These are the most important questions! If (first:) the objects are perceived in the ultimate or if (second:) all the "relative" is totally faulty, the buddhist Path would be totally impossible for us. Why, here you have quotes:

first:If you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. hand), it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time. Nothing functions, nothing makes sense for you sentient being. I guess only all-knowing buddhas could locate it precisely (e.g. since beginnigless time of the "existence" of Samsara and invintive causes/conditions for "it")?

gad rgyangs wrote:look there's this whole debate that has been going on forever about whether Buddhas perceive the relative or only the ultimate. Since there is no consensus, I guess we'll just have to wait until we're Buddhas to find out. The Buddha, as he is portrayed in most of the extant texts, would undoubtably consider such speculation completely pointless anyway. What is important is how we perceive what, and why.

No, you are in error. These are the most important questions? If (first:) the objects are perceived in the ultimate or if (second:) all the "relative" is totally faulty, the buddhist Path would be totally impossible for us. Why, here you have quotes:

first:If you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. hand), it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time. Nothing functions, nothing makes sense for you sentient being. I guess only all-knowing buddhas could locate it precisely (e.g. since beginnigless time of the "existence" of Samsara and invintive causes/conditions for "it")

gad rgyangs wrote:the ultimate is not taught by speculating about what a Buddha's perceptions are like. Just worry about how your own perceptions work, analyzing your own sense of self, etc.

As I posted yesterday: You see, earlier I also was argued about definition of "the seeming" because the terms "faulty" or false" (for all the seeming) are a little tricky. Suppose you agree with my understanding: the all "the seeming" (even if seems to be false) can be useful in Madhyamaka practice, let alone in Mahamudra or Dzogchen, so one can not say it is totally false. It's all about the "self-liberation", is not? As I quted Dzogchen Ponlop in Tibetan madhyamaka forum here:

Therefore, Madhyamaka continually emphasizes “no arising,”which cuts the process at the very beginning.Like Mahamudra and Dzogchen, Madhyamaka does not apply anyantidotes to suppress or destroy the arising of emotions, other than theanalysis that produces insight into their nature. When we analyze theemotions in this way, they are self-liberated. It is important to understandthat these methods are not mere philosophy.

The "perceived object" is the self-liberated because "it" had not existed in the first place, never ever "was", not ever even "arisen", so there is nothing to liberate at all

conebeckham wrote:I'll ask the "leading question" then...if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct perception?

Or, in other words, is "perception" always incorrect?

Thank you very much conebeckham. You have exactly the same objections to Namdrol:

Oh, I dunno if I have an objection.....there's an implication here, which I'd like to see fleshed out further, but as it stands now, I don't see anything to object to.....

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Mariusz wrote:Thank you very much conebeckham. You have exactly the same objections to Namdrol:

Your objection is totally faulty since your objecting to something I never said.

From collins:objectionn1. an expression or feeling of opposition or disapprovalbecause the presentation was incomplete for me as I posted to conebeckham. My english is not native so i'm sorry for possible errors. Implication can be too. So I'd like to see fleshed it out further like conebeckham too.

gad rgyangs wrote:the ultimate is not taught by speculating about what a Buddha's perceptions are like. Just worry about how your own perceptions work, analyzing your own sense of self, etc.

Here you have one more quote of mine (far more detailed) I posted in Dzogchen Forum here, from book WISDOM NECTAR: Dudjom Rinpoche's Heart Advice (trans. by Ron Garry from Tsadra Foundation Series book), which I found also compatible:

Do not meditate to arrive at a conclusion: “That’s it!” If you meditate inthat way, it becomes intellectual activity. Here, there is no object of meditation whatsoever nor even an instant of distraction. Distraction from resting in awareness is true delusion. Don’t be distracted! Whatever thoughts arise, let them arise. Do not follow after them and donot suppress them. If you ask “In that case, what should I do?” whateverobjective phenomena arise, whatever appears, do not grasp phenomena’sappearing aspect as you rest in a fresh state, like a small child looking insidea temple. When all phenomena are left as they are, their appearance isnot modified, their color does not change, and their brilliance does notdiminish. If you do not spoil phenomena with clinging and graspingthoughts, appearances and awareness will nakedly manifest as empty andluminous wisdom.

However, many teachings considered to be very deep or extremely vasthave left individuals of lesser intelligence mystified. If I put my finger onthe concise essential meaning, it is this: In the gap between the lastthought’s cessation and the next’s arising, isn’t there a fresh, present knowing (da lta’i shes pa) that has not been modified even in the slightest—luminous, naked awareness? That itself is awareness’s abiding state!

But one does not permanently abide within the nature of reality (de khona). Doesn’t a thought suddenly arise? That is the natural display of awareness. However, if you do not recognize thoughts as soon as they arise, theywill naturally spread. This is called “the chain of delusion,” the root of samsara. Simple recognition of thoughts as they arise breaks their flow. Releasethoughts within that recognition. When you remain in that state, arisingthoughts will all be liberated equally within awareness, the expanse ofdharmakaya. This is the main practice in which the view and meditation ofCutting through Solidity (khregs chod) are cultivated as one.

As I was adviced one can comfortably sit with these profound pointing-out instructions in 7-point Vairochana position (-legs are crossed in vajra position or leveled on floor with left leg inside and right leg outside, -hands are placed right upon left with palms up at a distance 4 fingers below the navel or hands are on knees, -back is straight like an arrow, -head is slightly inclined forwards, -shoulders are level resting naturally like “the wings of a vulture” not connected with belly, but here: -relax with eyes open straigth into space about 5 meters without glaring or moving the focus, -breathing comfortably with slightly open mouth where tongue can be placed behind the upper teeth). I wish you good luck For more details please find a qualified Dzogchen teacher.

conebeckham wrote:I'll ask the "leading question" then...if objects can be perceived only in two ways, correctly and incorrectly, and incorrect perception is relative truth, then what is correct perception?

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:Namdrol-Thanks. Would it be fair, then, to say that a correct perception does not see "objects," or phenomena, per se?

This where there is a huge divide between gelug and the rest of Tibetan madhyamakas. Gelugs would tend to say what is not perceived is inherent existence of objects; most Madhyamakas would say that objects are not perceived at all.

Wouldn't that mean then that Buddha would bump every object along his way?Might there be the case that, at least from a Dzogchen perspective, all phenomena are recognized as ornaments, manifestation of the energy aspect and not taken as something existent? I'm just asking to see if I can make some sense out of this.

Dechen Norbu wrote:Wouldn't that mean then that Buddha would bump every object along his way?Might there be the case that, at least from a Dzogchen perspective, all phenomena are recognized as ornaments, manifestation of the energy aspect and not taken as something existent? I'm just asking to see if I can make some sense out of this.

And wouldn't perceiving wisdom mean recognizing all phenomena as the energy aspect instead of not perceiving phenomena at all? Perceiving manifestation "as it is" instead of not perceiving manifestation? Again, just asking to see if this makes sense.

Dechen Norbu wrote:And wouldn't perceiving wisdom mean recognizing all phenomena as the energy aspect instead of not perceiving phenomena at all? Perceiving manifestation "as it is" instead of not perceiving manifestation? Again, just asking to see if this makes sense.

one perceives all phenomena as the display of one's wisdom. But this is not really part of madhyamaka.

"A correct perception takes ultimate truth as its object" and "most Madhyamakas would say that objects are not perceived at all"

Or put another way how do you equate for Candra referring to ultimate truth as an object with Santideva's emphasis that it is not an object (9:2)

I understand that Gelugpa's in post meditation identify emptiness as an object and as such need to tweak Santideva's position but what about most Madhyamikas where ultimate truth is beyond any categorizations don't they need to tweak Candra's assertion which refers to ultimate truth as an object?